Brooks

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL
Originally Posted by along
I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense
and then see what y'all have to say about AB!
8)
...

Why can't the coaches find a way to get the most out of our talent on O and D....The patriots have an average QB(honestly), an above average RB, a mediocre receiving core, and a defense full of guys who couldn't start on other teams...Coaching and Front office counts....We should win the Bowl every 3 years..

The Super Bowl is a journey , a journey in which a group of men set out to conquer it all .There is a leader on this journey , and in New Orleans his name is Hasbeen . Now Hasbeen has never been to the Super Bowl , not as a player or a coach . Hasbeen is totally clueless on how to get to the Super Bowl , some coaches are not .Belichick is not clueless , he followed Parcels and the road looked familiar to Belichick . Prior to Belichick , Shanahan found the Super Bowl as did his brother Holmgren , they had been there before with Papa Walsh .

The moral of this story is , We Saints fans are rooting for a clueless leader named Hasbeen hoping for him to find something he has never seen and does not know how to find.

I agree that coaches, scouts, fans, etc. judge players on the basis of the "big plays", but they also judge them on the basics - small errors, medium errors, and so on count too.

My point isn't that we can't tell who is a good player or a bad one (and I know you agree), it was that some times people tend to put too much on one player. It seems to me, except in odd cases the amount of praise/blame a player gets for a W or L is much less than people take it to be.

Thus, what is complicated is not telling who made good or bad "important plays", but what is complicated is telling how much one player should get praise or blame for a team's record, an individual game score, and so on. THAT inference is VERY complicated in my view - too many fans make it sound like it is easy: one fumble and that cost us the game - I think not. I think you agree. Excellent work though.

I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense
and then see what y'all have to say about AB!

8)

It doesn't need to be that one sided.

SFIAH

Well...It's sure is one sided with Aaron Brooks
is getting all the blame and our Defense is dead
last in everything!!!

8)

AB does not get all of the blame -- everyone admits the defense blows -- nobody says AB is to blame for everything -- what we are saying is AB is not the QB he thinks he is --not the QB that many on this forum believes he is. For now he is an aerage QB -- not because of the wins/losses but because he is as inconsistent as they come -- throw in his attitude and leadership skills and you have a persons who many do not believe is the answer -- personally I think he has fantastic physical skills -- but as far as I am concerned this is his last year -- he doesn't move to the next level and I would just as soon see him traded

I agree that coaches, scouts, fans, etc. judge players on the basis of the "big plays", but they also judge them on the basics - small errors, medium errors, and so on count too.

Of course. Ultimately, details are the name of the game in terms of a player improving himself. No doubt. But players don't improve, IMO, so that they make every backside block perfectly, for example. The purpose is so that one time that the RB does cut it back upfield, the back side tackle is there to spring him for a big gain, not a tackle for a loss.

Originally Posted by JKool

My point isn't that we can't tell who is a good player or a bad one (and I know you agree), it was that some times people tend to put too much on one player. It seems to me, except in odd cases the amount of praise/blame a player gets for a W or L is much less than people take it to be.

I don't argue that there is bias and slant to a fan's perspective, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. I thought we were speaking in a vacuum here. That said - we seem to fundamentally disagree as to how to assign the blame. I seem to look to the game as a whole and then identify the few key plays that I feel are dispositive on the game's outcome, and assign credit/blame to the key players in those key plays. You seem to look to each play individually to grade out a player, and only after looking at all the plays do you seem to look to other factors like how the unit played, the importance of the player to the team, etc.

Again, to go back to my Michael Lewis example. If the Saints' offense and defense both play generally "good" games (good enough to win), and with 3 seconds left on the clock and the game tied 21 all, Michael Lewis tries to do this leaping spinning lateral that the other team recovers and returns for a winning score, I have no problem assigning Lewis the majority of the blame for that loss. You seem to have a problem with that based on the rest of the plays in the game.

As with a court case, I assume that there will be error (there is in every case). But to me, there's a difference b/w harmless error and error that effects the outcome. You seem as if you aren't significantly differentiating between the two - which is fine, it's your opinion, as this is mine.

Originally Posted by JKool

Thus, what is complicated is not telling who made good or bad "important plays", but what is complicated is telling how much one player should get praise or blame for a team's record, an individual game score, and so on. THAT inference is VERY complicated in my view - too many fans make it sound like it is easy: one fumble and that cost us the game - I think not. I think you agree. Excellent work though.

Depends on when that fumble occurs, as I illustrated above.

I think you might be under-estimating the common fan. I know that watching a game I can tell that Gandy is over the hill and hanging on by a thread. I can see when Deuce is on or off. I can that T. Jones is a highlight reel in a helmet - big hit or big play (e.g. big miss).

It's true that the average fan might not fully comprehend plays within the "scheme." In other words, I know I can't always tell that the reason Bellamy got beat deep wasn't b/c he screwed up but b/c Brown was out of position or Craft did hold a guy up at the line and gave a WR a free release. But that kind of stuff is surprisingly well reported on these days, and for the most part, if I watch a game and walk away thinking that we got run all over b/c our LBs were getting blown up and were out of position, I feel confident that my take is fairly accurate. As a result, if I said that the LBs were largely to blame for that loss, I don't think that is inappropriate. If that happens repeatedly throughout the season, I don't see the problem with saying that our LBs are affecting our ability to win.

One more quick thing J. There is an assumption, I think, that coaches and scouts know so much more about the game than we as fans do. I often wonder about that. They are certainly closer to the situations and privy to information that the rest of us don't have. They're also clearly better trained and more focused on the topic at hand.

All of that said, it strikes me as odd the number of times that Haslett has stood at a podium after a game and said, "I don't get it, I just don't understand..." about something I was able to identify as a problem in the preseason months earlier. I'm not claiming to be some wise football god. But that's the point. I'm common as a fan, so how is it tha something can be so clear to me at home, and not to these guys? For another example, how often could you accurately guess when the Saints would run v. pass, or to which side, or even which exact play when McCarthy was calling the shots? How about Carl Smith? If I can sit at home and know what's coming, then these guys either aren't coming close to outsmarting other coordinators, or they really aren't all that much more advanced that any person whose played the game and still follows it closely... what say you?

I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense
and then see what y'all have to say about AB!

8)

It doesn't need to be that one sided.

SFIAH

Well...It's sure is one sided with Aaron Brooks
is getting all the blame and our Defense is dead
last in everything!!!

8)

AB does not get all of the blame -- everyone admits the defense blows -- nobody says AB is to blame for everything -- what we are saying is AB is not the QB he thinks he is --not the QB that many on this forum believes he is. For now he is an aerage QB -- not because of the wins/losses but because he is as inconsistent as they come -- throw in his attitude and leadership skills and you have a persons who many do not believe is the answer -- personally I think he has fantastic physical skills -- but as far as I am concerned this is his last year -- he doesn't move to the next level and I would just as soon see him traded

Well...I'm one of them that feel he is a big reason
why our team can win.
I see you address his learning time in the NFL as
inconsistent...but you also say he has fantastic physical skills.

Like I sayed before...I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense
and then see what y'all have to say about AB!

I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense
and then see what y'all have to say about AB!

Are you serious?
With a top 5 Defense I could sit back in the pocket and then:
Pet my dog.
Make Love to my girlfriend.
Write a letter to my buddies in Iraq,
and Afghanistan.
Most importantly; I would explain to my 9 year-old son why the Saints are the only team that matters.
I would still have a better QB rating than AB!

1. I agree with you that some fans are quite good at understanding the game and making good judgements about players, fault, etc. In general, I believe that someone who follows a team closely and understands most of the technical details can evaluate quite accurately. However, while a fan may "know" that such and such a player is over-the-hill (or something), I have little faith in most to tell the details - e.g. it is trouble carrying extra weight on older bones, it is a hitch in his footing-mechanic that youthful speed overcame, etc. That is, people who do this for a living spot the details - while the fans may be on to the general problem, they aren't always able to assess the particulars of the problem.

2. It seems that our core disagreement is, as you note, over the importance of the key plays. I agree that these are vital in determining praise and blame, but I think they merely modify the standard distribution of such things - whereas you seem to think they constitute the judgement.

I guess, I still see this as a problem: even if a player fumbles the ball at the end of a game, giving his team no chance for a come-back, he cannot take most of the blame for the loss - since it is the play of so many others that has put the team in position to need to make a come-back in the first place.

It seems to me that this speaks to your "good-enough-to-win" example. It is simply too abstract to me to say that there is a case where one player costs a team the game, as all the other units played well enough to win. I suppose, I can readily imagine such a case, but it is rare. While I agree this is a good argument against my placing a cap on the blame/praise to an individual player, it isn't an argument against assigning praise/blame accross all phases and players in a game.

I agree that errors occur the whole game and are made by every player. This is one of the main reasons for distributing blame/praise more evenly across the players. I further agree that the timing of errors and their magnitude make some difference in blame assignment they cannot be all there is to the story.

Consider the following. Every unit on the team has played well enough to win. However, the game is tied in the dying minute of the game (due in part to the fact that the other team has played well enough to win as well), and the other team has posession. A CB for the defending team, let's call him Massey, forgets to check his cleats before he goes on for the last series. Careless, of course, but let's also say that two of the cleats have come loose. The team with the ball calls a short post corner route, the defending team covers it perfectly, until Massey slips (as a result of his cleats). The result of the play is the winning score. On your analysis, Massey seems to be 100% to blame for the loss, since every other unit on both teams has played "well enough to win". That doesn't seem right to me. What about the sack in 1st that turned the momentum, the 40 yard play that tied the game late in the 3rd, all the little details of an excellent game plan, terrific precision in the blocking schemes, the footwork of the defensive backs throughout the game? You get the idea.

First, let me compliment you on your use of a hypothetical name. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by JKool

I guess, I still see this as a problem: even if a player fumbles the ball at the end of a game, giving his team no chance for a come-back, he cannot take most of the blame for the loss - since it is the play of so many others that has put the team in position to need to make a come-back in the first place.

Of course, there's another side to that fence, and I on it.

Saints v. LA Diablos (formerly the AZ Cardinals). 12 seconds remain in the game. Score is Saints: 21, Diablos: 10. Diablos have the ball 2nd and goal on the Saints 1 yardline. They run a power dive and score. Extra point is good. 6 seconds remain in the game. Score is Saints: 21, Diablos: 17 (they don't go for two. Their head coach, Jim Haslett, is playing a game of strategery). Diablos line up for an on-sides kick. Saints put their hands team on the field. Now a WR, we'll just call him "Henderson" is on the field. The on-side kick comes to him. If he falls down, the Saints win. Instead, he runs around with the ball, gets jacked, fumbles, and it's returned for a TD. Now, you want to tell me that Wayne Gandy's missed block in the second quarter that caused a sack and ended a drive is relevant? Gandy starts at 3.3% to blame and so does Henderson? C'mon Kool. That's crazy talk!

Massey seems to be 100% to blame for the loss, since every other unit on both teams has played "well enough to win".

OK - a couple of things. I did use extreme examples, and I guess theoretically my distribution does allow for a player to be 100% responsible, but I would never say a player is 100% responsible for a game.

That said, I also note a key difference between my example and yours, for whatever it's worth. In my example, there is a mental error. An extreme lack of judgment. In yours, it's physical, but even more so, it is not a result of something that the player did (or didn't do), as much as it is a natural occurence. Personally, I am more likely to allow exceptions for physical mistakes than mental ones. That's not to say that you might not be able to pin a good deal of the blame on Massey, in your example. But given that your example does so much highlight a mistake as it does a physical short-coming (for lack of a better word), I'd be more lenient in that case.